The Mott Hall School MS223 -- 2003 No Child Left Behind ...



U.S. Department of Education November 2002

2002-2003 No Child Left Behind—Blue Ribbon Schools Program

Cover Sheet

Name of Principal Dr. Mirian Acosta-Sing

(Specify: Ms., Miss, Mrs., Dr., Mr., Other) (As it should appear in the official records)

Official School Name The Mott Hall School MS 223

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address 71 Convent Avenue __________________________

(If address is P.O. Box, also include street address)

New York NY __ 10027-7556__________

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

Tel. (212) 927-9466 Fax (212) 491-3451

Website/URL Email masing85@

I have reviewed the information in this application, including the eligibility requirements on page 2, and certify that to the best of my knowledge all information is accurate.

Date____________________________

(Principal’s Signature)

Private Schools: If the information requested is not applicable, write N/A in the space.

Name of Superintendent Dr. Jorge Izquierdo

(Specify: Ms., Miss, Mrs., Dr., Mr., Other)

District Name Community School District 6 Tel. (927) 521-3600

I have reviewed the information in this application, including the eligibility requirements on page 2, and certify that to the best of my knowledge it is accurate.

Date____________________________ (Superintendent’s Signature)

Name of School Board Roberto Lizardo

President/Chairperson

(Specify: Ms., Miss, Mrs., Dr., Mr., Other)

I have reviewed the information in this package, including the eligibility requirements on page 2, and certify that to the best of my knowledge it is accurate.

Date____________________________

(School Board President’s/Chairperson’s Signature)

PART II - DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

DISTRICT (Questions 1-2 not applicable to private schools)

1. Number of schools in the district: 14 Elementary schools

9 Middle schools

0 Junior high schools

0 High schools

26 TOTAL

2. District Per Pupil Expenditure: $9,673

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: $10,469

SCHOOL (To be completed by all schools)

3. Category that best describes the area where the school is located:

[* ] Urban or large central city

[ ] Suburban school with characteristics typical of an urban area

[ ] Suburban

[ ] Small city or town in a rural area

[ ] Rural

4. 17 Number of years the principal has been in her/his position at this school.

____ If fewer than three years, how long was the previous principal at this school?

5. Number of students enrolled at each grade level or its equivalent in applying school:

|Grade |# of Males |# of Females |

6. Racial/ethnic composition of 3.7% White

the students in the school: 7.2 % Black or African American

84 % Hispanic or Latino

5.1 % Asian/Pacific Islander

0 % American Indian/Alaskan Native

100% Total

7. Student turnover, or mobility rate, during the past year: 2%

(This rate includes the total number of students who transferred to or from different schools between October 1 and the end of the school year, divided by the total number of students in the school as of October 1, multiplied by 100.)

|(1) |Number of students who transferred |0 |

| |to the school after October 1 until| |

| |the end of the year. | |

|(2) |Number of students who transferred |2 |

| |from the school after October 1 | |

| |until the end of the year. | |

|(3) |Subtotal of all transferred |2 |

| |students [sum of rows (1) and (2)] | |

|(4) |Total number of students in the |410 |

| |school as of October 1 | |

|(5) |Subtotal in row (3) divided by |.004 |

| |total in row (4) | |

|(6) |Amount in row (5) multiplied by 100|.4 |

8. Limited English Proficient students in the school: 3%

5 Total Number Limited English Proficient

Number of languages represented: 2

Specify languages: Spanish and Chinese

9. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals: 78.9%

Approx. 323Total Number Students Who Qualify

If this method is not a reasonably accurate estimate of the percentage of students from low-income families or the school does not participate in the federally-supported lunch program, specify a more accurate estimate, tell why the school chose it, and explain how it arrived at this estimate.

10. Students receiving special education services: _10_%

7 Total Number of Students Served

Indicate below the number of students with disabilities according to conditions designated in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

____Autism ____Orthopedic Impairment

____Deafness ____Other Health Impaired

____Deaf-Blindness _* _Specific Learning Disability

____Hearing Impairment ____Speech or Language Impairment

____Mental Retardation ____Traumatic Brain Injury

____Multiple Disabilities ____Visual Impairment Including Blindness

11. Indicate number of full-time and part-time staff members in each of the categories below:

Number of Staff

Full-time Part-Time

Administrator(s) 2 ________

Classroom teachers 28 ________

Special resource teachers/specialists 1 ________

Paraprofessionals 0 ________

Support staff 1 ________

Total number 32 ________

12. Student-“classroom teacher” ratio: 25:1

13. Show the attendance patterns of teachers and students. The student drop-off rate is the difference between the number of entering students and the number of exiting students from the same cohort. (From the same cohort, subtract the number of exiting students from the number of entering students; divide that number by the number of entering students; multiply by 100 to get the percentage drop-off rate.) Briefly explain in 100 words or fewer any major discrepancy between the dropout rate and the drop-off rate. Only middle and high schools need to supply dropout and drop-off rates.

| |2001-2002 |2000-2001 |1999-2000 |1998-1999 |1997-1998 |

|Daily student attendance | | |95.5% |95.6% |95.2% |

|Daily teacher attendance |90% |90% |90% |90% |90% |

|Teacher turnover rate |10% |5% |5% |5% |5% |

|Student dropout rate |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |

|Student drop-off rate |2% |2% |2% |2% |2% |

PART III - SUMMARY

Provide a brief, coherent narrative snapshot of the school in one page (approximately 475 words). Include at least a summary of the school’s mission or vision in the statement and begin the first sentence with the school’s name, city, and state.

The Mott Hall School located in New York City, New York is dedicated to developing future leaders in Mathematics, Science and Technology by providing a world-class education that prepares students for college and higher learning. Our academically rigorous curricula consist of in-depth real world investigations, elective course studies, seminars and special enrichment electives which are offered in a personalized, caring and child-centered environment.

The Mott Hall curricula offers students Off-Campus Learning Experiences that allow them to engage in specialized, out-of-school apprenticeships, internships, and other real world work experiences in collaboration with community based organizations and nearby universities. For example, students participate in Mott Hall’s Community Service Learning Program and the Science Apprenticeship in Research Program, where students work alongside with professional practitioners. The U.S. Department of Education, School-to Work Program, has recognized these two programs as models of exemplary national programs.

Mott Hall has a technology rich environment where technology integration is a very important element to the overall instructional program. In an effort to confront the digital divide, Mott Hall has implemented a school wide laptop program that has placed a laptop directly into the hands of every student and staff member. In recognition for Mott Hall’s exemplary work in technology integration, the George Lucas Education Foundation, featured our project based laptop learning design in their book, Eductopia (2001) and on their web-site.

MHS has ranked in the top ten percent of New York City Middle Schools in reading and mathematics since 1987. The Mott Hall School model, which has been replicated in other districts, has received numerous awards and recognition for its project-based technology laptop program, chess program, specialized science program (STARS), community service learning program, and for its overall academic school excellence. The school’s chess team has won several national first place competitions. Congressman Charles Rangel recognized the achievements of Mott Hall by placing the school into the Congressional Record in 1991. In October 2002, The White House selected Mott Hall (one of only three schools in the nation) to be part of a special international technology project through the organization- Friendship through Education- to promote good will with muslin countries in the aftermath of September 11.

Moreover, Mott Hall has hosted many open houses to educators from around the world and across the nation to observe the school’ model and specialized programs. In particular, two world chess players, Karpov and Kasparov actually played chess with our students. Bill Gates and his wife Melinda Gates visited Mott Hall in 1996 to observe first hand our technology laptop school model.

In summary, a great majority numbers of our minority students have been awarded scholarships for full tuition at private schools such as Dalton, Exeter and Choate Academies and have gone on to universities such as Yale, Harvard, Columbia, and MIT.

Our student’s acceptance rate into the specialized schools such as Bronx Science High School and Stuyvesant High School has been as high as 70 percent of our graduating class.

PART IV – INDICATORS OF ACADEMIC SUCCESS

The Mott Hall School culture is one of high expectations for all students regardless of race, gender, or economic status. The Mott Hall School achievement data was disaggregated using available student achievement data to demonstrate the performance level of students relevant to ethnic/racial group (Hispanic), socioeconomic group (eligibility for free lunch), and according to gender (female). The MHS student population is reflective of the Washington Heights community it serves. Our student population is predominately Hispanic. Approximately 84% of our student body is of Hispanic heritage representing many countries. As demonstrated by NYS State and NYC Test Results (see Table 1) over 90% of our Hispanic students met the performance standards in 1999, 2000, and 2001. Students eligible for Title 1 status represent about 68% of the student body.

4th grade Hispanic students jumped from 94% to 100% proficiency on the Grade 4 ELA in 2001-2002. Students demonstrating advanced levels of achievement also rose from 40% to 47%. Seventy-nine percent of Hispanic 4th graders exceeded the NYS Mathematics Performance Standards increasing 42% from the previous year. In 2001-2002, 94% of 6th grade Hispanic students achieved proficiency on the NYC CTB. In mathematics, 96.1% meet the standards and 48% achieved advanced levels. Likewise, 7th grade Hispanic students out performed the school as a whole in terms of acquiring proficiency levels. 92.1% met NYC performance standards in language arts in 2001-2002. Furthermore, 68.6% demonstrated advanced proficiency on the CTB-Mathematics Test.

Female students at the MHS have established a tradition of excellent academic performance, as well. Beginning in 4th grade, 100% of female students achieved proficiency on the NYS ELA in 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. Average of 90 % of female students in all grades achieved proficiency in both mathematics and English language arts for all grades. 79% of 4th graders, 55% of 5th graders, 48% of 6th graders, 66% of 7th graders, and 51% of 8th graders achieved advanced levels in mathematics.

An average of approximately 93% of low-income students in all grades at Mott Hall achieved proficiency on both the NYS and NYC ELA and Mathematics Tests. Student performance in mathematics is 79% of 4th grades, 48% of 5th graders, 42% sixth graders, 61% seventh graders, and 55% of eighth graders achieved advanced performance levels demonstrating the effectiveness of the accelerated mathematics instruction at Mott Hall.

1. Show in one-half page (approximately 200 words) how the school uses assessment data to understand and improve student and school performance.

The MHS believes that it is essential to connect teaching and learning through authentic and ongoing assessment. Teachers are expected to use informal, as well as, formal assessments to inform their instructional practice and target the specific needs of individual students. Informal assessments such as teacher developed tests, student self-assessments, and performance tests are used to give students detailed feedback related to academic strengths and weaknesses and individual performance level achieved based on mastery objectives. Teachers use formal student assessment data gathered through the Grow Report and standardized test results are used in three major ways:

1) to identify what students have already mastered for effective and efficient

curriculum planning

2) to target specific student needs

3) as feedback regarding the effectiveness of their instruction and curriculum

Informal student data generated on the school level is used to differentiate student instruction on an on-going basis, monitor student progress, and select the right and appropriate strategies for student needs. The essential framework implemented by the Mott Hall School is one of collecting student achievement data, interpreting the data, and using the data assessment results to select appropriate strategies to target student needs. The cycle continues on a regular basis throughout the school year. The MHS professional development team and administration meets on a regular basis to strategically align teacher professional development needs with the academic needs of students.

2. Describe in one-half page how the school communicates student performance, including assessment data, to parents, students, and the community.

The Mott Hall School strives to extend the traditional means of communicating student performance beyond the summative, district mandated reports cards. In keeping with the school mission to prepare students to be tomorrow’s leaders in the field of technology, there is a special emphasis on the use of available technology to facilitate communication between school community members. Traditional means of reporting students’ assessment data are used (including the use of student report cards and informal and formal parent/teacher conferences); however, more emphasis is placed on web based communication. The MHS Web site has been recognized by the International Association of Web Designers through the 2002-2003 Golden Web Award in the category of Education. It offers a wealth of resources and support to parents, students, and teachers alike.

Technology

Mott Hall School eChalk: The Mott Hall School has implemented an intranet web-based communication system to facilitate parent/teacher/student contact and communication beyond the regular school hours. Through this data base, the school community is able to post school events, policies, achievements, and curriculum resources. Access is granted to all members of the MHS community. Parents, students, and teachers are each assigned their own account. The site administrator has created specific curriculum related links giving parents access to specific information related to their own child. Teachers post homework assignments, upcoming events, exam dates, and related support resources parents can use. Everyone including administrators and staff have personal eChalk accounts allowing communication to take place beyond the traditional school day.

3. Describe in one-half page how the school will share its successes with other schools.

The Mott Hall School is a learning community in spirit and action. All members of the Mott Hall School are committed to sharing best practices in an effort to improve and refine their own practice while supporting others in their work to educate children. Teachers drawn to Mott Hall have a commitment to professional growth and believe that professional collaboration is an essential element of sustaining a learning community. The MHS hosts local, national, and international visitors interested in learning from the successes of the Mott Hall School. The school is also involved in joint educational ventures in coordination with Teachers’ College and Barnard College at Columbia University, as well as, the City College of New York City, CUNY.

Dr. Mirian Acosta Sing and members of the MHS teaching staff are dedicated to furthering the education of children through excellent practice by willing participating in educational conferences at local and national levels. In keeping with the spirit of collaboration and learning, the school welcomes inter-visitation, in-depth studies of school programs, student teachers placements, and supports a year long internship program focused on identifying the essential features critical to the Mott Hall success.

PART V – CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION

1. Describe in one page the school’s curriculum, including foreign languages (foreign language instruction is an eligibility requirement for middle, junior high, and high schools), and show how all students are engaged with significant content, based on high standards.

The overall goal of the Mott Hall School’s curriculum is to develop independent, skilled students who become self-directed and reflective thinkers. New York State’s Learning Standards serve as the overall framework for the school’s core curriculum. The core curriculum, which follows the Principles of Learning and National Standards, is modified and enriched to offer students more opportunities to engage in in-depth real world investigations tied directly to student needs and interests. In addition, students are provided with a progressive and accelerated curriculum consisting of special editions of courses, seminars, and special enrichment electives.

An essential component of the curriculum is the integration of critical thinking and technology in all subject areas including foreign language teaching. Students are considered young scholars and learn subject matter through project based, constructivist learning approaches. MHS uses curriculum mapping to identify multidisciplinary themes across all disciplines. Teachers collaboratively develop quality-integrated units of study that connect important concepts across disciplines. Given the school’s focus on mathematics, science, and technology, the curriculum has evolved to include off-campus apprenticeships, in-depth scientific investigations with mathematicians and scientists in authentic settings.

All students are engaged with significant content in all subject areas, including foreign language by working on intellectually powerful learning experiences such as Socratic dialogues, literature circles, writing for student publications, creating web sites, competing in on-line national science competitions, debating in interscholastic tournaments, designing software programs for Lego Robotics competitions, digital filmmaking, and playing chess in local and national competitions.

Teachers collaboratively design interdisciplinary curricular units utilizing the Understanding by Design process developed by Grant Wiggins (2000). The units place great emphasis on students’ understanding the major concepts and principles of a subject in order to promote deep, conceptual learning. For example, the Mathematics teachers use a cross-disciplinary approach in teaching math by having students study Islamic art and the art of Max Escher in pursuit of understanding geometry. In addition, 7th grade math students participate in weekly seminars given by volunteer professional investment bankers from Morgan Stanley and Dean Witter to study the relationships between business concepts and mathematical operations.

English speaking students at Mott Hall receive instruction in Spanish as a foreign language. Hispanic students learn advanced Spanish and work closely with their peers in support groups, study circles, and conversing through web-based activities. The foreign language curriculum addresses the importance of cultural diversity and global studies. In summary, MHS is committed to providing an academically rigorous curriculum that has many enriched and extended intellectual learning experiences inside and outside the school building.

2. (Secondary Schools) Describe in one-half page the school’s English language curriculum, including efforts the school makes to improve the reading skills of students who read below grade level.

Mott Hall’s English Language Arts curriculum embraces a school wide focus on literacy and writing. The curriculum is aligned with best practices and with the most recent research on literacy. Affording numerous opportunities to read a wide range of genres including modern, classics, anthologies of poetry, and plays inspires a love of reading and writing. A strong literacy block has been implemented to allow for a comprehensive and coherent English Arts curriculum. Teachers follow and implement all the components of a balanced and comprehensive literacy program. Moreover, all students maintain a literacy portfolio, which demonstrates their growth in reading and writing. There is a strong emphasis on writing in every discipline using Lucy Calkin’s writing process where students are encouraged and supported to write for publication in various student journals. Vocabulary development is also taught in every subject.

Utilizing Standards for the English Language Arts(1996) teachers afford numerous learning opportunities for students to conduct research on topics raised in various disciplines. In addition, teachers target students who are in need of reading improvement by providing them with individualized and differentiated instruction. Specifically, teachers create flexible groupings to address the needs of these students by conducting small group instruction, mini lessons, and study groups during the school day as well as after school and lunchtime tutoring.

3. Describe in one-half page one other curriculum area of the school’s choice and show how it relates to essential skills and knowledge based on the school’s mission.

An important goal at Mott Hall is to motivate and encourage our minority students to pursue a career in the professional field of science. Consequently, the science curriculum is designed to engage students’ curiosity of science through ongoing scientific investigations of real world issues, problems, and phenomena. In our General, Life, and Earth Science classes, students develop a keen sense of inquiry, formulate and test hypotheses, learn to access information from available resources including the internet to present their investigations in class presentations.

A specialized program developed at Mott Hall is our Student Apprenticeship in Research Program (STARS). This out-of-school apprenticeship program is a collaborative project with The City College of New York. Participating students work alongside scientists and are engaged in the designing of science experiments, which allows them to learn concepts and content which is not included in the standard middle school science curriculum. Recently, our STARS student’s science investigation was launched on The Columbia Space Shuttle. This apprenticeship program was recognized and highlighted by The George Lucas Education Foundation in its Edutopia publication, and The U.S. Department of Education, School-to-Work Program as an exemplary model Science/ Technology mentoring program.

It is our hope that by providing an academically enriched and rigorous science curriculum, our students will consider careers in the fields of science and mathematics.

4. Describe in one-half page the different instructional methods the school uses to improve student learning.

MHS employs a wide variety of instructional strategies that are based on successful teaching practices and what the research says about powerful teaching and learning strategies. In particular, research based strategies that impact most on student achievement are used by teachers such as note taking, summarizing, graphic organizers, modeling, coaching, accountable talk discussions, simulations, role-playing, literature circles, cooperative learning, and providing students with quality feedback on their work. Moreover, two strategies that are particularly effective for our students are the use of Socratic dialogues and problem based learning.

Socratic dialogues are used in almost every discipline to involve students in in-depth discussions, problem solving, and clarification of complex ideas. Critical thinking is considered the key to learning in every content area. Consequently, this strategy is used to foster active learning and allow students to explore and evaluate ideas, issues, and values in a particular text. Moreover, problem based learning is also used as a powerful teaching strategy in every discipline to engage students in intriguing, real, and relevant intellectual inquiry which allows them to learn from life situations and scenarios.

Community-Based Learning- Mott Hall is committed to preparing students to become contributing members of their communities by providing a wide range of experiences designed to engage students actively. As part of the MHS Service Learning Program, eighth grade students are linked with organizations within the fields of education, geriatrics, business, and the non-profit sector. Community- based learning contributes to students’ personal growth by broadening their awareness of the world and encouraging compassion, courtesy, altruism and civic pride.

5. Describe in one-half page the school’s professional development program and its impact on improving student achievement.

It is our strong belief that teacher expertise is the most important factor impacting student achievement. With this in mind, the professional development afforded to the entire staff at MHS consists of learning experiences that significantly affect what they do in the classroom and make a difference in their ability to help all students reach high standards. MHS utilizes a differentiated, job-embedded model that takes into account the different phases of a teacher’s development, needs and interests. The staff development include teacher collaborative experiences such as analyzing student work and test scores, engaging in curriculum mapping and Japanese lesson study, becoming well-acquainted with content and performance standards, developing Understand by Design interdisciplinary units of studies, working in study groups and action research. All experiences are designed to support all teachers in terms of content and pedagogy and are directly connected to the school’s mission and vision.

Emphasis is on assisting teachers acquire a wide repertoire of effective, research-based instructional strategies that address the specific needs of all MHS students. Teachers are afforded many opportunities during the school day as well as after school and summer to learn about the most powerful teaching and learning techniques that directly impact student achievement. Overall, the design centers on developing, refining, and expanding teachers’ pedagogical repertoire, content knowledge, and the skill to integrate both using a collaborative and collegial work model that allows teachers to work in an intellectual environment of continuous inquiry and reflection.

Provide the following information for all tests in reading (language arts or English) and mathematics. Complete a separate form for reading (language arts or English) and mathematics at each grade level.

Grade: 4 Test: English Language Arts State Test

Edition/publication year 1999-2002 Publisher CTB/McGraw-Hill

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed? All groups included in testing at the Mott Hall School. All available test data was used.

Number excluded : 0 Percent excluded 0%

For the school and state, report scores as the percentage of students tested whose performance was scored at or above the cutpoint used by the state for 1) basic, 2) proficient, and 3) advanced, or similar categories as defined by the state. States will vary in their terminology and cutpoints. Note that the reported percentage of students scoring above the basic cutpoint should include students scoring above the proficiency, and advanced cutpoints.

Explain the standards for basic, proficient, and advanced, and make clear what the test results mean in a way that someone unfamiliar with the test can interpret the results.

Level 4: Students exceed the learning standards for English Language Arts. Their performance shows superior understanding of written and oral text.

Level 3: Students meet the learning standards. Their performance shows through understanding of written and oral text.

Level 2: Students show partial achievement of the learning standards. Their performance shows minimal understanding of written and oral text.

Level 1: Students do not meet the learning standards. Their performance shows minimal understanding of written and oral text.

Grade 4 ELA State Test Results

| |2001-2002 |2000-2001 |1999-2000 |1998-1999 |1997-1998 |

|Testing month | | | | | |

|SCHOOL SCORES | | | | | |

| Total | | | | | |

| At or Above Basic |100% |100% |100% |100% | |

| At or Above Proficient |100% |95.5% |100% |96.2% | |

| At Advanced |54% |43.2% |45.1% |19.2% | |

| Number of students tested |50 |44 |51 |26 | |

| Percent of total students tested | | | | | |

| Number of students excluded | |98% | | | |

| Percent of students excluded | |2% | | | |

| SUBGROUP SCORES | | | | | |

| 1._Hispanic |42 |80% | | | |

| At or Above Basic |100% |100% | | | |

| At or Above Proficient |100% |94% | | | |

| At Advanced |47.6% |40% | | | |

| 2. Female |38 |64% | | | |

| At or Above Basic |100% |100% | | | |

| At or Above Proficient |100% |100% | | | |

| At Advanced |58.6% |46.4% | | | |

| 3. Low-income |38 |82% | | | |

| At or Above Basic |100% |100% | | | |

| At or Above Proficient |100% |94.4% | | | |

| At Advanced |43.6% |36% | | | |

|STATE SCORES | | | | | |

| Total | | | | | |

| At or Above Basic | | | | | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient | |60% |58.7% |48% | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

| At Advanced | | | | | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

Grade 4 Mathematics State Tests Results

| |2001-2002 |2000-2001 |1999-2000 |1998-1999 |1997-1998 |

|Testing month | | | | | |

|SCHOOL SCORES | | | | | |

| Total | | | | | |

| At or Above Basic |100% |100% |100% |100% | |

| At or Above Proficient |100% |95.5% |100% |96% | |

| At Advanced |45.8% |40.9% |30% |56% | |

| Number of students tested |48 |44 |50 |25 | |

| Percent of total students tested | |100% |100% |100% | |

| Number of students excluded | |0% |0% |0% | |

| Percent of students excluded | |0% |0% |0% | |

| SUBGROUP SCORES | | | | | |

| 1. Hispanic |43 |35 | | | |

| At or Above Basic |100% |100% | | | |

| At or Above Proficient |97.7% |94.3% | | | |

| At Advanced |79.1% |37.1% | | | |

| 2. Female |29 |28 | | | |

| At or Above Basic |100% |100% | | | |

| At or Above Proficient |96.6% |96.4% | | | |

| At Advanced |79.3% |35.7% | | | |

| 3. Low-income |38 |36 | | | |

| At or Above Basic |100% |100% | | | |

| At or Above Proficient |97.4% |94.4% | | | |

| At Advanced |78.9% |38.9% | | | |

|STATE SCORES | | | | | |

| Total | | | | | |

| At or Above Basic | | | | | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient |67.6% |69.1% |65.0% |66.7% | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

| At Advanced | | | | | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

Grade 5 CTB- Reading Test Results

| |2001-2002 |2000-2001 |1999-2000 |1998-1999 |1997-1998 |

|Testing month | | | | | |

|SCHOOL SCORES | | | | | |

| Total | | | | | |

| At or Above Basic |100% |100% |100% |100% | |

| At or Above Proficient |100% |100% |98.6% |95.1% | |

| At Advanced |26.8% |33.3% |13.7% |11.7% | |

| Number of students tested |71 |69 |73 |103 | |

| Percent of total students tested | | | | | |

| Number of students excluded | | | | | |

| Percent of students excluded | | | | | |

| SUBGROUP SCORES | | | | | |

| 1. Hispanic | | | | | |

| At or Above Basic | | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient | | | | | |

| At Advanced | | | | | |

| 2. Female | | | | | |

| At or Above Basic | | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient | | | | | |

| At Advanced | | | | | |

| 3. Low-income | | | | | |

| At or Above Basic | | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient | | | | | |

| At Advanced | | | | | |

|STATE SCORES | | | | | |

| Total | | | | | |

| At or Above Basic | | | | | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient | | | | | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

| At Advanced | | | | | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

Grade 5 CTB- Mathematics Test Results

| |2001-2002 |2000-2001 |1999-2000 |1998-1999 |1997-1998 |

|Testing month | | | | | |

|SCHOOL SCORES | | | | | |

| Total | | | | | |

| At or Above Basic |100% |100% |100% |100% | |

| At or Above Proficient |95.8% |95.7% |97.3% |86.4% | |

| At Advanced |49.3% |37.7% |60.3% |29.1% | |

| Number of students tested |71 |69 |73 |103 | |

| Percent of total students tested | | | | | |

| Number of students excluded | | | | | |

| Percent of students excluded | | | | | |

| SUBGROUP SCORES | | | | | |

| 1. Hispanic | | | | | |

| At or Above Basic | | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient | | | | | |

| At Advanced | | | | | |

| 2. Female |44 | | | | |

| At or Above Basic |100% | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient |100% | | | | |

| At Advanced |54.5% | | | | |

| 3. Low-income |42 | | | | |

| At or Above Basic |100% | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient |100% | | | | |

| At Advanced |47.6% | | | | |

|STATE SCORES | | | | | |

| Total | | | | | |

| At or Above Basic | | | | | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient | | | | | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

| At Advanced | | | | | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

Grade 6 CTB- Reading Test Results

| |2001-2002 |2000-2001 |1999-2000 |1998-1999 |1997-1998 |

|Testing month | | | | | |

|SCHOOL SCORES | | | | | |

| Total | | | | | |

| At or Above Basic |98.9% |99% | |100% | |

| At or Above Proficient |92.5% |93.1% | |83% | |

| At Advanced |16.1% |10.9% | |12.3% | |

| Number of students tested |93 |101 | |106 | |

| Percent of total students tested | | | | | |

| Number of students excluded | | | | | |

| Percent of students excluded | | | | | |

| SUBGROUP SCORES | | | | | |

| 1. Female |63 | | | | |

| At or Above Basic |96.8% | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient |95.2% | | | | |

| At Advanced |36.5% | | | | |

| 2. Hispanic |81 | | | | |

| At or Above Basic |98.8% | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient |93.8% | | | | |

| At Advanced |29.6% | | | | |

| 3. Low-income |70 | | | | |

| At or Above Basic |97.1% | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient |90% | | | | |

| At Advanced |28.6% | | | | |

|STATE SCORES | | | | | |

| Total | | | | | |

| At or Above Basic | | | | | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient | | | | | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

| At Advanced | | | | | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

Grade 6 CTB- Mathematics Test Results

| |2001-2002 |2000-2001 |1999-2000 |1998-1999 |1997-1998 |

|Testing month | | | | | |

|SCHOOL SCORES | | | | | |

| Total | | | | | |

| At or Above Basic |98.9% |100% |95.4% |100% | |

| At or Above Proficient |95.7% |97% |83.3% |84.9% | |

| At Advanced |67.7% |56.4% |31.5% |48.1% | |

| Number of students tested |93 |101 |108 |106 | |

| Percent of total students tested | | | | | |

| Number of students excluded | | | | | |

| Percent of students excluded | | | | | |

| SUBGROUP SCORES | | | | | |

| 1. Hispanic |77 | | | | |

| At or Above Basic |100% | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient |96.1% | | | | |

| At Advanced |48% | | | | |

| 2.Female |64 | | | | |

| At or Above Basic |95.3% | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient |90.6% | | | | |

| At Advanced |45.3% | | | | |

| 3.Low-income |69 | | | | |

| At or Above Basic |91.3% | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient |87% | | | | |

| At Advanced |42% | | | | |

|STATE SCORES | | | | | |

| Total | | | | | |

| At or Above Basic | | | | | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient | | | | | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

| At Advanced | | | | | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

Grade 7 CTB- Reading Test Results

| |2001-2002 |2000-2001 |1999-2000 |1998-1999 |1997-1998 |

|Testing month | | | | | |

|SCHOOL SCORES | | | | | |

| Total | | | | | |

| At or Above Basic |100% |96.3% |100% |100% | |

| At or Above Proficient |91% |87.9% |96.1% |82.8% | |

| At Advanced |20.2% |23.4% |20.6% |23% | |

| Number of students tested |89 |107 |102 |87 | |

| Percent of total students tested | | | | | |

| Number of students excluded | | | | | |

| Percent of students excluded | | | | | |

| SUBGROUP SCORES | | | | | |

| 1. Female |54 | | | | |

| At or Above Basic |100% | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient |87% | | | | |

| At Advanced |11.1% | | | | |

| 2. Hispanic |76 | | | | |

| At or Above Basic |100% | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient |92.1% | | | | |

| At Advanced |13.1% | | | | |

| 3.Low-income |64 | | | | |

| At or Above Basic |100% | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient |92.2% | | | | |

| At Advanced |15.6% | | | | |

|STATE SCORES | | | | | |

| Total | | | | | |

| At or Above Basic | | | | | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient | | | | | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

| At Advanced | | | | | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

Grade 7 CTB- Mathematics Test Results

| |2001-2002 |2000-2001 |1999-2000 |1998-1999 |1997-1998 |

|Testing month | | | | | |

|SCHOOL SCORES | | | | | |

| Total | | | | | |

| At or Above Basic |100% |94.4% |99% |98.9% | |

| At or Above Proficient |96.9% |84.1% |89.2% |94.3% | |

| At Advanced |56.3% |30.8% |31.4% |29.5% | |

| Number of students tested |96 |107 |102 |88 | |

| Percent of total students tested | | | | | |

| Number of students excluded | | | | | |

| Percent of students excluded | | | | | |

| SUBGROUP SCORES | | | | | |

| 1. Hispanic |77 | | | | |

| At or Above Basic |100% | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient |98.7% | | | | |

| At Advanced |68.8% | | | | |

| 2.Female |55 | | | | |

| At or Above Basic |100% | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient |96.4% | | | | |

| At Advanced |65.5% | | | | |

| 3.Low-income |64 | | | | |

| At or Above Basic |100% | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient |95.3% | | | | |

| At Advanced |61% | | | | |

|STATE SCORES | | | | | |

| Total | | | | | |

| At or Above Basic | | | | | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient | | | | | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

| At Advanced | | | | | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

Eighth Grade ELA State Test Results

| |2001-2002 |2000-2001 |1999-2000 |1998-1999 |1997-1998 |

|Testing month | | | | | |

|SCHOOL SCORES | | | | | |

| Total | | | | | |

| At or Above Basic |95.3% |98.9% |98.8% |97.7% | |

| At or Above Proficient |85.8% |89.5% |82.1% |94.2% | |

| At Advanced |28.3% |23.2% |9.5% |20.9% | |

| Number of students tested |106 |95 |84 |86 | |

| Percent of total students tested | |100% |99% |100% | |

| Number of students excluded | |0 |1 |0 | |

| Percent of students excluded | |0% |1% |0% | |

| SUBGROUP SCORES | | | | | |

| 1. Hispanic | |80 | | | |

| At or Above Basic | |98.7% | | | |

| At or Above Proficient | |88.8% | | | |

| At Advanced | |24% | | | |

| 2. Female | |63 | | | |

| At or Above Basic | |100% | | | |

| At or Above Proficient | |93.7% | | | |

| At Advanced | |25.4% | | | |

| 3.Low-income | |72 | | | |

| At or Above Basic | |98.7% | | | |

| At or Above Proficient | |87.5% | | | |

| At Advanced | |19.4% | | | |

|STATE SCORES | | | | | |

| Total | | | | | |

| At or Above Basic | | | | | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient |48.1% |44.8% |44.9% |44.3% | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

| At Advanced | | | | | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

Grade 8 Mathematics State Tests Results

| |2001-2002 |2000-2001 |1999-2000 |1998-1999 |1997-1998 |

|Testing month | | | | | |

|SCHOOL SCORES | | | | | |

| Total | | | | | |

| At or Above Basic |95.2% |97.9% |100% |98.8% | |

| At or Above Proficient |81.9% |79.2% |96.4% |91.3% | |

| At Advanced |15.2% |24% |19.3% |17.5% | |

| Number of students tested |105 |96 |83 |80 | |

| Percent of total students tested | |100% |100% |100% | |

| Number of students excluded | |0 |0 |0 | |

| Percent of students excluded | |0% |% |% | |

| SUBGROUP SCORES | | | | | |

| 1. Hispanic |78 |81 | | | |

| At or Above Basic |100% |97.5% | | | |

| At or Above Proficient |97.3% |79.0% | | | |

| At Advanced |55.1% |22.2% | | | |

| 2. Female |57 |64 | | | |

| At or Above Basic |100% |98.4% | | | |

| At or Above Proficient |96.5% |75.0% | | | |

| At Advanced |50.9% |15.6% | | | |

| 3. Low-income |62 |73 | | | |

| At or Above Basic |100% |98.6% | | | |

| At or Above Proficient |98.4% |75.3% | | | |

| At Advanced |54.8% |17.8% | | | |

|STATE SCORES | | | | | |

| Total | | | | | |

| At or Above Basic | | | | | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

| At or Above Proficient |67.6% |69.1% |65.0% |66.7% | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

| At Advanced | | | | | |

| State Mean Score | | | | | |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download